Here's something I found this morning...
Why are these tactics needed? Because a guy is a legal gun owner? What indication is there he would try to harm an LEO? Why not just call him and ask him to come down to the station?
You know what? If he doesn't come down, THEN you know he's probably a felon.
Read this guys...and do something about it.
Next time, it could be you.
EVERYONE MUST KNOW
LAST MONDAY, APRIL 16TH, 4 AM, NEAR THE HAMLET OF CRAIGMYLE, SOUTHWEST OF HANNA AB. JOHN REW, AGE 50, WAS AWAKENED TO THE SOUND OF A S.W.A.T. SMOKE GRENADE SMASHING THROUGH HIS BEDROOM WINDOW.
HE WAS THROWN FACEDOWN ON THE FLOOR AND HANDCUFFED INSTANTLY AFTERWARD, AS A SECOND SMOKE GRENADE EXPLODED THROUGH HIS TV STAND IN THE LIVING ROOM, BURNING A HOLE IN THE FLOOR.
THE DRUMHELLER RCMP, CALGARY S.W.A.T., RED DEER S.W.A.T. HAD COME FOR ALL HIS FIREARMS, IN PARTICULAR HIS REGISTERED PROHIBS AND RESTRICTEDS. YES! REGISTERED!
ALTHOUGH THEIR SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY RESIDENCES, JOHN AGREED TO LEAD THEM ACROSS THE FARMYARD TO HIS 80 YEAR OLD MOTHER’S HOUSE. HER BASEMENT CONTAINS JOHN’S STORAGE FACILITY.
JOHN’S MOTHER, BETTY, ALLOWED THEM ENTRY AND WAS DETAINED FOR HER CO-OPERATIVE EFFORTS. THE MASKED, BODY ARMOURED, ASSAULT RIFLE EQUIPPED THUGS GOT WHAT THEY CAME FOR.
JOHN WAS HAULED AWAY, STILL IN HANDCUFFS, JOHN’S ALLEGED CRIME: ALLOWING HIS F.A.C/P.A.L TO EXPIRE, HIS VARIOUS CRIMINAL CHARGES ALL STEM FROM THAT. (ADOLPH WOULD BE PROUD)
2:30 THAT AFTERNOON JOHN WAS RELEASED, PROMISING TO APPEAR IN DRUMHELLER COURT 10AM MAY 25TH, 2007.
THE BROWNSHIRTS SHUT DOWN HIS OILFIELD BUSINESS FOR THE DAY, TURNING HIS 20 EMPLOYEES AWAY AT THE GATE. HIS SISTER WAS NOT ALLOWED ENTRY TO TEND TO BETTY.
IRONICALLY, THE NEXT DAY, APRIL 17TH, OUR GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED AN EXTENSION OF THE LONG GUN REGISTRY “AMNESTY” FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
WILL THIS HELP JOHN AND HIS FAMILY? WE MUST CONSIDER OURSELVES JOHN’S FIREARMS FAMILY MEMBERS. I STAND UP FOR MY FAMILY, DO YOU? ELECTION TIME IS COMING NOW IS OUR TIME TO BE HEARD. DON’T FALL MUTE NOW. FURTHER INFORMATION WILL FOLLOW FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE THE FORTITUDE TO UTILIZE IT.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Virginia Tech
I've just seen what happened at Virginia Tech today...31 people killed, and supposedly the deadliest shooting in US history.
This post isn't about guns or gun control or anything political. It's not the time. I feel physically sick.
HOW? How can someone dehumanize other people to that extent???
I just hope the death toll has stopped now...and that no one else needs to be hurt.
This post isn't about guns or gun control or anything political. It's not the time. I feel physically sick.
HOW? How can someone dehumanize other people to that extent???
I just hope the death toll has stopped now...and that no one else needs to be hurt.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Backdoor ban on handguns
Well if you can't ban the guns...Ban the ammo! This is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. Once again, proof positive that they don't care about crime, they never thought the laws they proposed years ago would be "good enough", that they will scare people into anything to gain votes and that they DO NOT want the public owning firearms...Period!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Resolution:
Restricting the Sale and Possession
of Handgun Ammunition
"That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services should request the Chief Firearms Officer to conduct a study to identify ways of better regulating ammunition which includes consideration of additional mechanisms to further restrict and/or ban the sale and possession of ammunition for hand guns and to share relevant findings with Federal and Provincial/Territorial partners."
Media Release:
Duguid Proposes Restrictions on Possession and Sale of Handgun Ammunition
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 -- Brad Duguid, MPP Scarborough Centre, is introducing a Private Member’s Resolution in the Ontario Legislature on Thursday, March 29, 2007, calling on the Ontario Government to direct the Chief Firearms Officer to report on alternatives to restrict and limit the possession and sale of handgun ammunition.
“Unless someone is in law enforcement, there are few legitimate reasons for anyone to be in the possession of handgun ammunition. If the Government of Ontario moves forward with a ban on the unauthorized possession of handgun ammunition, the police will have another tool at their disposal to address the problem of guns and gangs in our community.” Duguid said.
Duguid’s Resolution would have the Chief Firearms Officer conduct a study to identify ways of better regulating ammunition including consideration of additional mechanisms to further restrict and/or ban the sale and possession of ammunition for hand guns.
In addition, the Chief Firearms Officer could consider alternatives to ensure that ballistic tests are taken and recorded from shells of all handguns. As well, there could be consideration of mandatory record keeping by retailers of all ammunition purchases.
“You can’t fire a handgun without a bullet. Today, if police come across a criminal or gang member in possession of handgun ammunition (having already dumped the handgun) there is nothing they can do but let him go. They can’t even confiscate the ammunition knowing that it may well be used in a shooting any time in the future. That’s simply not right and needs to be addressed.”
Duguid’s resolution has the support of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.
-30-
For more information contact Brad Duguid, MPP directly at cell 416-993-5195.
Backgrounder:
Current laws regarding possession of handgun ammunition:
Ammunition Regulation Act, 1994 (Selected Sections)
Restriction re purchase of ammunition
2. (1) No person shall purchase ammunition unless the person is at least 18 years old and at the time of purchase presents valid identification that has his or her photograph and age or date of birth or other valid identification prescribed by regulation. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (1).
Same
(2) Despite subsection (1), a person under 18 years old may purchase ammunition if he or she presents at the time of purchase the valid identification required under subsection (1) and a valid permit issued to him or her under subsection 110 (6) of the Criminal Code (Canada). 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (2).
Same
(3) Despite subsection (1), a person 16 or 17 years old may purchase ammunition if he or she presents at the time of purchase the valid identification required under subsection (1) and a valid permit issued to him or her under subsection 110 (7) of the Criminal Code (Canada). 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (3).
Improper documentation
(4) No person shall present, for the purpose of purchasing ammunition, identification or a permit other than that which was lawfully issued to him or her. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (4).
Offence
(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1), except as permitted by subsection (2) or (3), is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5,000;
(b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $10,000. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (5).
Same
(6) A person who contravenes subsection (4) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (6).
Restriction re sale of ammunition
3. (1) No person shall knowingly sell or provide ammunition to any person unless that person produces documentation as required under subsection 2 (1), (2) or (3). 1994, c. 20, s. 3 (1).
Same
(2) Despite subsection (1), a person may provide ammunition to a person who is 12 years old or over and under 16 years old if that person holds a permit issued to him or her under subsection 110 (7) of the Criminal Code (Canada). 1994, c. 20, s. 3 (2).
Record keeping
4. (1) A person who holds a permit issued under subsection 110 (5) of the Criminal Code (Canada) to carry on a business described in subparagraph 105 (2) (b) (i) of that Act shall keep a record of the following information for all ammunition sales:
1. The date and time of the purchase.
2. The name, age and address of the purchaser.
3. The type of identification and permit produced and their serial numbers.
4. The calibre and quantity of ammunition purchased. 1994, c. 20, s. 4 (1).
Inspection of records
(2) The chief provincial firearms officer for Ontario, designated under the Criminal Code (Canada), or any person authorized by him or her for the purposes of this section, may conduct an inspection of the records required to be kept under subsection (1). 1994, c. 20, s. 4 (2).
Overall Number of Homicides, Gun Related Homicides, and Shooting Incidents, Toronto, 2004-2007
In 2006, there were 29 gun related homicides in Toronto, a 45% decrease from 2005. The number of gun related homicides spiked in 2005 (from 27 in 2004 to 53 in 2005) and returned close to the 2004 level in 2006. In 2006, 42% of homicides were gun related. The overall number of homicides decreased from 80 in 2005 to 69 in 2006. In 2007 YTD1 there were 7 homicides in Toronto, 4 of which (57%) were gun related.
Number of Gun Related Homicides, Toronto, 2004-2007
Year 2004 2005 2006 2005 YTD1 2006 YTD1 20072YTD1
Total number of homicides 64 80 69 12 9 7
Total number of gun related homicides 27 53 29 7 2 4
Percentage of gun related homicides out of Total number of homicides 42% 66% 42% 58% 22% 57%
Sources: Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada & Corporate Planning, Corporate Services, Toronto Police Service
Number of Shooting Incidents3, Toronto, 2005-2007
Year 2005 2006 2005 YTD1 2006 YTD1 20072 YTD1
Shooting Incidents 249 207 29 31 21
Total number of victims as a result of shooting incidents 344 292 35 43 26*
Shooting Victim Injury Level
Number of deaths as a result of shooting incident 53 29 7 2 4
Number of victims that sustained injuries as a result of shooting incident 179 173 15 24 17
Number of victims with no injuries as a result of shooting incident 89 71 7 16 5
Unknown4 23 19 6 1 0
Sources: Toronto Police Service, 680 News, City news, Toronto Star
* There was one shooting incident that occurred on February 15, 2007, however, information on the number of victims, if any, is pending.
1 Year-to-date as of March 4.
2 Data is subject to change due to incidents that have been investigated and deemed to be unfounded, or reclassification of an offence subsequent to further investigation.
3 2005 and 2006 data is based on report date, that is, the date the victim reported the shooting incident to the police. All incidents involving police officers discharging firearm in the line of duty and incidents where victims shot themselves are excluded.
4 Prepared by: Corporate Evaluation and Analysis, Corrections and Community Safety Policy Branch, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Updated on March 5, 2007 10:46 AM The extent of injuries to the victim could not be determined.
Cost of Handgun ammunition and where it can be purchased today:
See Package.
Purpose of Resolution:
Consider ways to restrict the possession of handgun ammunition to those who require it to fulfill their duties such as law enforcement officials. While the resolution leaves open the consideration of other alternatives, it is intended to consider outlawing the possession of handgun ammunition outside of an approved gun range. Handgun ammunition could only be available for purchase and use at an approved gun range.
This proposal would have the affect of banning the sale of handgun ammunition from retail outlets. It would consider ways to make it illegal to acquire through mail or other means handgun ammunition other than at approved gun ranges.
Further, this proposal would consider the viability of requiring all handguns bought, sold, manufactured, possessed or discharged in a firing range within the Province of Ontario to have on file a ballistics sample of the shell casing discharged from every handgun. This data base of ballistics samples could provide police with leads as they trace the ownership of the weapon. It could also assist in providing evidence to aid in the prosecution of handgun offences."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People, this has nothing to do with "crime guns" or "sporting purposes" or "handguns" at all. Gun ownership itself is under attack and will stay under attack. If you care AT ALL about gun rights, or your rights in general, let your MPP know about this and how you feel! Or take 10 minutes to write a short editorial.
It DOES make a difference.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Resolution:
Restricting the Sale and Possession
of Handgun Ammunition
"That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services should request the Chief Firearms Officer to conduct a study to identify ways of better regulating ammunition which includes consideration of additional mechanisms to further restrict and/or ban the sale and possession of ammunition for hand guns and to share relevant findings with Federal and Provincial/Territorial partners."
Media Release:
Duguid Proposes Restrictions on Possession and Sale of Handgun Ammunition
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 -- Brad Duguid, MPP Scarborough Centre, is introducing a Private Member’s Resolution in the Ontario Legislature on Thursday, March 29, 2007, calling on the Ontario Government to direct the Chief Firearms Officer to report on alternatives to restrict and limit the possession and sale of handgun ammunition.
“Unless someone is in law enforcement, there are few legitimate reasons for anyone to be in the possession of handgun ammunition. If the Government of Ontario moves forward with a ban on the unauthorized possession of handgun ammunition, the police will have another tool at their disposal to address the problem of guns and gangs in our community.” Duguid said.
Duguid’s Resolution would have the Chief Firearms Officer conduct a study to identify ways of better regulating ammunition including consideration of additional mechanisms to further restrict and/or ban the sale and possession of ammunition for hand guns.
In addition, the Chief Firearms Officer could consider alternatives to ensure that ballistic tests are taken and recorded from shells of all handguns. As well, there could be consideration of mandatory record keeping by retailers of all ammunition purchases.
“You can’t fire a handgun without a bullet. Today, if police come across a criminal or gang member in possession of handgun ammunition (having already dumped the handgun) there is nothing they can do but let him go. They can’t even confiscate the ammunition knowing that it may well be used in a shooting any time in the future. That’s simply not right and needs to be addressed.”
Duguid’s resolution has the support of Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair.
-30-
For more information contact Brad Duguid, MPP directly at cell 416-993-5195.
Backgrounder:
Current laws regarding possession of handgun ammunition:
Ammunition Regulation Act, 1994 (Selected Sections)
Restriction re purchase of ammunition
2. (1) No person shall purchase ammunition unless the person is at least 18 years old and at the time of purchase presents valid identification that has his or her photograph and age or date of birth or other valid identification prescribed by regulation. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (1).
Same
(2) Despite subsection (1), a person under 18 years old may purchase ammunition if he or she presents at the time of purchase the valid identification required under subsection (1) and a valid permit issued to him or her under subsection 110 (6) of the Criminal Code (Canada). 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (2).
Same
(3) Despite subsection (1), a person 16 or 17 years old may purchase ammunition if he or she presents at the time of purchase the valid identification required under subsection (1) and a valid permit issued to him or her under subsection 110 (7) of the Criminal Code (Canada). 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (3).
Improper documentation
(4) No person shall present, for the purpose of purchasing ammunition, identification or a permit other than that which was lawfully issued to him or her. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (4).
Offence
(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1), except as permitted by subsection (2) or (3), is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5,000;
(b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $10,000. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (5).
Same
(6) A person who contravenes subsection (4) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. 1994, c. 20, s. 2 (6).
Restriction re sale of ammunition
3. (1) No person shall knowingly sell or provide ammunition to any person unless that person produces documentation as required under subsection 2 (1), (2) or (3). 1994, c. 20, s. 3 (1).
Same
(2) Despite subsection (1), a person may provide ammunition to a person who is 12 years old or over and under 16 years old if that person holds a permit issued to him or her under subsection 110 (7) of the Criminal Code (Canada). 1994, c. 20, s. 3 (2).
Record keeping
4. (1) A person who holds a permit issued under subsection 110 (5) of the Criminal Code (Canada) to carry on a business described in subparagraph 105 (2) (b) (i) of that Act shall keep a record of the following information for all ammunition sales:
1. The date and time of the purchase.
2. The name, age and address of the purchaser.
3. The type of identification and permit produced and their serial numbers.
4. The calibre and quantity of ammunition purchased. 1994, c. 20, s. 4 (1).
Inspection of records
(2) The chief provincial firearms officer for Ontario, designated under the Criminal Code (Canada), or any person authorized by him or her for the purposes of this section, may conduct an inspection of the records required to be kept under subsection (1). 1994, c. 20, s. 4 (2).
Overall Number of Homicides, Gun Related Homicides, and Shooting Incidents, Toronto, 2004-2007
In 2006, there were 29 gun related homicides in Toronto, a 45% decrease from 2005. The number of gun related homicides spiked in 2005 (from 27 in 2004 to 53 in 2005) and returned close to the 2004 level in 2006. In 2006, 42% of homicides were gun related. The overall number of homicides decreased from 80 in 2005 to 69 in 2006. In 2007 YTD1 there were 7 homicides in Toronto, 4 of which (57%) were gun related.
Number of Gun Related Homicides, Toronto, 2004-2007
Year 2004 2005 2006 2005 YTD1 2006 YTD1 20072YTD1
Total number of homicides 64 80 69 12 9 7
Total number of gun related homicides 27 53 29 7 2 4
Percentage of gun related homicides out of Total number of homicides 42% 66% 42% 58% 22% 57%
Sources: Uniform Crime Reporting Survey, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada & Corporate Planning, Corporate Services, Toronto Police Service
Number of Shooting Incidents3, Toronto, 2005-2007
Year 2005 2006 2005 YTD1 2006 YTD1 20072 YTD1
Shooting Incidents 249 207 29 31 21
Total number of victims as a result of shooting incidents 344 292 35 43 26*
Shooting Victim Injury Level
Number of deaths as a result of shooting incident 53 29 7 2 4
Number of victims that sustained injuries as a result of shooting incident 179 173 15 24 17
Number of victims with no injuries as a result of shooting incident 89 71 7 16 5
Unknown4 23 19 6 1 0
Sources: Toronto Police Service, 680 News, City news, Toronto Star
* There was one shooting incident that occurred on February 15, 2007, however, information on the number of victims, if any, is pending.
1 Year-to-date as of March 4.
2 Data is subject to change due to incidents that have been investigated and deemed to be unfounded, or reclassification of an offence subsequent to further investigation.
3 2005 and 2006 data is based on report date, that is, the date the victim reported the shooting incident to the police. All incidents involving police officers discharging firearm in the line of duty and incidents where victims shot themselves are excluded.
4 Prepared by: Corporate Evaluation and Analysis, Corrections and Community Safety Policy Branch, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Updated on March 5, 2007 10:46 AM The extent of injuries to the victim could not be determined.
Cost of Handgun ammunition and where it can be purchased today:
See Package.
Purpose of Resolution:
Consider ways to restrict the possession of handgun ammunition to those who require it to fulfill their duties such as law enforcement officials. While the resolution leaves open the consideration of other alternatives, it is intended to consider outlawing the possession of handgun ammunition outside of an approved gun range. Handgun ammunition could only be available for purchase and use at an approved gun range.
This proposal would have the affect of banning the sale of handgun ammunition from retail outlets. It would consider ways to make it illegal to acquire through mail or other means handgun ammunition other than at approved gun ranges.
Further, this proposal would consider the viability of requiring all handguns bought, sold, manufactured, possessed or discharged in a firing range within the Province of Ontario to have on file a ballistics sample of the shell casing discharged from every handgun. This data base of ballistics samples could provide police with leads as they trace the ownership of the weapon. It could also assist in providing evidence to aid in the prosecution of handgun offences."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People, this has nothing to do with "crime guns" or "sporting purposes" or "handguns" at all. Gun ownership itself is under attack and will stay under attack. If you care AT ALL about gun rights, or your rights in general, let your MPP know about this and how you feel! Or take 10 minutes to write a short editorial.
It DOES make a difference.
Excellent essay on the cost of gun control
Nope, I didn't write this...But the guy who did is certainly switched on!
My Fellow Canadian ~
I once read an excellent Isaac Asimov non-fiction essay on really big numbers. Humans are in general really bad at understanding big numbers. Because of my math / science / engineering background, I'm maybe a bit better than average, but I'm no Asimov. I have though learned a few ways to help me better understand big numbers, so that I can better deal with them when I need to. This essay shows how some of those methods work.
The initial Government of Canada estimate for the gun registry database system was $1 million. Technically, I think that's probably a bit low. Based on my on three decades of work in the field of distributed multi-user database transaction processing systems like the registry, and on some systems I'm currently working on which are of that type, I think $3 million would have been a better estimate.
If someone from the Government of Canada can provide me with a simple accounting showing some component of the system that I've missed, I'd be more than happy to adjust my analysis of the situation to take that data into account. My current analysis is based on the numbers I have collected from the public media over the last few years.
Given how important it is for state monopolies to serve citizens to the highest possible ethical standard, let's throw in a factor of three-ish over my base estimate and call it $10 million, to be as careful as possible.
Now, say you had such a $10 million contract with some customers. And then, say you spent three times that: $30 million. Does it occur to you that your customers (in this case, we citizens) might be, oh, shall we say, somewhat angry? Ok, let's say it's another factor of three: $90 million. How are your customers doing now? Fine. Let's throw in another factor of three, so we're now up to $270 million. How angry are your customers now? In more primitive times than we live in, would you still be alive? But wait, there's more. How much would we pay for another factor of three? Oh, about $810 million. Say, that's interesting, the gun registry database system has, according to the CBC, cost $750 million.
It didn't cost 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times 3 times as much. It cost 3 times 3 times 3 times 3 times as much.
That's like planning to have two children, and ending up with 162 (two times three to the power of four). Now stop. Think about that number, 162 children. It's unimaginable that you could legitimately have 162 children, in any way whatsoever. Likewise, there is no way I can come up with to imagine how the registry database project could legitimately cost $750 million, whatsoever.
Never mind that it is to me unfathomable that it could take eight years to develop the registry database, and never mind that according to the CBC it doesn't actually work; $750 million divided by eight years is about $250,000 per day. That's right, they spent what should have been, at its most extreme, a $10 million budget for the entire project, they spent that much every 40 days, for eight years.
Here's another way to look at it. The database system has cost about 750 / 8 = $94 million per year, for eight years. Loaded full-time staff costs in this field are about $100,000 per year. That means the development of this system employed 940 full-time staff per year for eight years. How the hell can a database fundamentally designed to store and retrieve 7 million gun records distributed across 3 million person records take 7,500 man-years to develop? What is this, the Pyramid of Cheops?
(Actually, the CBC's total cost figure of $2 billion for the entire gun registry "file" amounts to about $685,000 per day, which means they spent the entire initially estimated budget of $2 million, again according to the CBC, every three days, for eight years straight. That's 20,000 man-years, to register 7 million guns. But what do I know, I'm just a software guy, I'll stick to the database system.)
Corporations get sued for cost overruns on the order of tens of percent. Assuming my careful $10 million estimate is reasonable, the registry database is not 10 % over. It's not 100 % over. It's not 1,000 % over. It's 7,500 % over.
It's not 10 times less than the standard we citizens are held to, under threat of criminal prosecution. It's not 100 times less. The state's standard of performance for itself is 750 times less than the standard it holds us to. Who the hell, exactly, do these people think they are, and why the hell shouldn't we smite them?
Ok, I'll tell you what. Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada calls for jail for up to 10 years for fraud over $5,000. Applying the 750 factor apparently used by State Canada, let's just say that any politician or civil servant that is guilty of fraud over $5,000 should go to jail for 7,500 years.
That's starting to sound like a big enough number for me.
My Fellow Canadian ~
I once read an excellent Isaac Asimov non-fiction essay on really big numbers. Humans are in general really bad at understanding big numbers. Because of my math / science / engineering background, I'm maybe a bit better than average, but I'm no Asimov. I have though learned a few ways to help me better understand big numbers, so that I can better deal with them when I need to. This essay shows how some of those methods work.
The initial Government of Canada estimate for the gun registry database system was $1 million. Technically, I think that's probably a bit low. Based on my on three decades of work in the field of distributed multi-user database transaction processing systems like the registry, and on some systems I'm currently working on which are of that type, I think $3 million would have been a better estimate.
If someone from the Government of Canada can provide me with a simple accounting showing some component of the system that I've missed, I'd be more than happy to adjust my analysis of the situation to take that data into account. My current analysis is based on the numbers I have collected from the public media over the last few years.
Given how important it is for state monopolies to serve citizens to the highest possible ethical standard, let's throw in a factor of three-ish over my base estimate and call it $10 million, to be as careful as possible.
Now, say you had such a $10 million contract with some customers. And then, say you spent three times that: $30 million. Does it occur to you that your customers (in this case, we citizens) might be, oh, shall we say, somewhat angry? Ok, let's say it's another factor of three: $90 million. How are your customers doing now? Fine. Let's throw in another factor of three, so we're now up to $270 million. How angry are your customers now? In more primitive times than we live in, would you still be alive? But wait, there's more. How much would we pay for another factor of three? Oh, about $810 million. Say, that's interesting, the gun registry database system has, according to the CBC, cost $750 million.
It didn't cost 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times as much. Or 3 times 3 times 3 times as much. It cost 3 times 3 times 3 times 3 times as much.
That's like planning to have two children, and ending up with 162 (two times three to the power of four). Now stop. Think about that number, 162 children. It's unimaginable that you could legitimately have 162 children, in any way whatsoever. Likewise, there is no way I can come up with to imagine how the registry database project could legitimately cost $750 million, whatsoever.
Never mind that it is to me unfathomable that it could take eight years to develop the registry database, and never mind that according to the CBC it doesn't actually work; $750 million divided by eight years is about $250,000 per day. That's right, they spent what should have been, at its most extreme, a $10 million budget for the entire project, they spent that much every 40 days, for eight years.
Here's another way to look at it. The database system has cost about 750 / 8 = $94 million per year, for eight years. Loaded full-time staff costs in this field are about $100,000 per year. That means the development of this system employed 940 full-time staff per year for eight years. How the hell can a database fundamentally designed to store and retrieve 7 million gun records distributed across 3 million person records take 7,500 man-years to develop? What is this, the Pyramid of Cheops?
(Actually, the CBC's total cost figure of $2 billion for the entire gun registry "file" amounts to about $685,000 per day, which means they spent the entire initially estimated budget of $2 million, again according to the CBC, every three days, for eight years straight. That's 20,000 man-years, to register 7 million guns. But what do I know, I'm just a software guy, I'll stick to the database system.)
Corporations get sued for cost overruns on the order of tens of percent. Assuming my careful $10 million estimate is reasonable, the registry database is not 10 % over. It's not 100 % over. It's not 1,000 % over. It's 7,500 % over.
It's not 10 times less than the standard we citizens are held to, under threat of criminal prosecution. It's not 100 times less. The state's standard of performance for itself is 750 times less than the standard it holds us to. Who the hell, exactly, do these people think they are, and why the hell shouldn't we smite them?
Ok, I'll tell you what. Section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada calls for jail for up to 10 years for fraud over $5,000. Applying the 750 factor apparently used by State Canada, let's just say that any politician or civil servant that is guilty of fraud over $5,000 should go to jail for 7,500 years.
That's starting to sound like a big enough number for me.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Layton back in the saddle of stupidity
As if pushing for negotiations with the Taliban wasn't stupid enough...
"Ban semi-automatics, NDP leader urges PM
Montreal - The federal government should ban private ownership of semi automatic rifles such as the one Kimveer Gill used at Dawson College, NDP leader Jack Layton says.
"The answer to gun violence is not to end the gun registry - it's to ensure that assault weapons do not end up on city streets," Mr. Layton told a receptive audience during an event organized by the Dawson Committee for Gun Control.
Canada's firearms legislation, which includes restrictions on some guns and mandatory registration of others, is an effective tool in maintaining public safety, Mr. Layton said. There have been 300 fewer gun deaths a year in Canada since the gun rules were adopted in 1995, he noted.
Mr. Latyon urged the audience to press Prime Minister Stephen Harper to maintain and further tighten gun laws.
THE MONTREAL GAZETTE"
Hoo boy.
If anyone has any idea how a registry could have helped prevent this tragedty, please let me know! His guns were registered, it still happened. So...What would losing the registry do to make people safer?
I also like his reference to all semi automatic firearms as "assault rifles"....I guess my semi automatic 22 long rifle is an "assault rifle" now.
Sure, "assault rifles" exist...What are they, by definition? A rifle with FULLY AUTOMATIC capability (okay, that just scrapped his arguement right there) using a bullet stronger than that of a pistol, but weaker than a conventional rifle round.
Is the C-7 variant of the M-16 used by the Canadian Forces an assault rifle? Yeah. Is an M-16 variant owned by a citizen, with a magazine holding 5 whole rounds an assault rifle? If scooters are used in races, does that equate them to a bike like a Ninja?
His statistics about how we've had 300 fewer gun deaths per YEAR since 1995 is similary screwy. Don't just take my word for it though, let's have a look.
According to my Dept. of Justice handbook, which was issued to me during my course to own Restricted class firearms, 81% of "gun deaths" are suicides.
So less guns means less suicides?
Not quite. According to Statistics Canada, deaths by hanging have nearly doubled since (you guessed it, 1995.)
4% of deaths are accidental, and sadly usually involve children. For every retard who leaves a loaded firearm near children, there's a retard who locks a baby in their car, answers the phone while giving their baby a bath, or does not supervise their children as they play near a swimming pool.
Too bad we can't ban "stupid".
The remaining 15% are homicides.
Let's look at our homicide rate... Statistics Canada says it has dropped dramatically since 2005. Does that mean it's because of gun control? Um...not really. Our entire homicide rate dropped!
"
Guns only account for 28%-34% of our homicides? We need knife control!
Isn't it reassuring that Canadians would rather beat you to death or stab you?
It gets even better though!
"
Gosh...75% of the killers were consuming alcohol and/or drugs at the time they killed someone!
We need to ban drugs! Oh wait...They did. It sure made them harder to find, didn't it!
So what do you figure the odds are then, that these killers were already criminals, and thus barred from owning guns in the first place?
Well...
Unfortunately, women are often the victim of a violent crime, and the anti gun side of the fence loves trying to play that up. Also unfortunately, Stats Can has this to say.
Aren't we glad we spent that 1.4 BILLION dollars on the gun registry now?
People ask me very often "Why do politicians think banning guns will make us safer, then?"
The answer is, they don't! They know it won't do anything! BUT...It does bring in LOTS of votes from the uninformed.
"Ban semi-automatics, NDP leader urges PM
Montreal - The federal government should ban private ownership of semi automatic rifles such as the one Kimveer Gill used at Dawson College, NDP leader Jack Layton says.
"The answer to gun violence is not to end the gun registry - it's to ensure that assault weapons do not end up on city streets," Mr. Layton told a receptive audience during an event organized by the Dawson Committee for Gun Control.
Canada's firearms legislation, which includes restrictions on some guns and mandatory registration of others, is an effective tool in maintaining public safety, Mr. Layton said. There have been 300 fewer gun deaths a year in Canada since the gun rules were adopted in 1995, he noted.
Mr. Latyon urged the audience to press Prime Minister Stephen Harper to maintain and further tighten gun laws.
THE MONTREAL GAZETTE"
Hoo boy.
If anyone has any idea how a registry could have helped prevent this tragedty, please let me know! His guns were registered, it still happened. So...What would losing the registry do to make people safer?
I also like his reference to all semi automatic firearms as "assault rifles"....I guess my semi automatic 22 long rifle is an "assault rifle" now.
Sure, "assault rifles" exist...What are they, by definition? A rifle with FULLY AUTOMATIC capability (okay, that just scrapped his arguement right there) using a bullet stronger than that of a pistol, but weaker than a conventional rifle round.
Is the C-7 variant of the M-16 used by the Canadian Forces an assault rifle? Yeah. Is an M-16 variant owned by a citizen, with a magazine holding 5 whole rounds an assault rifle? If scooters are used in races, does that equate them to a bike like a Ninja?
His statistics about how we've had 300 fewer gun deaths per YEAR since 1995 is similary screwy. Don't just take my word for it though, let's have a look.
According to my Dept. of Justice handbook, which was issued to me during my course to own Restricted class firearms, 81% of "gun deaths" are suicides.
So less guns means less suicides?
Not quite. According to Statistics Canada, deaths by hanging have nearly doubled since (you guessed it, 1995.)
4% of deaths are accidental, and sadly usually involve children. For every retard who leaves a loaded firearm near children, there's a retard who locks a baby in their car, answers the phone while giving their baby a bath, or does not supervise their children as they play near a swimming pool.
Too bad we can't ban "stupid".
The remaining 15% are homicides.
Let's look at our homicide rate... Statistics Canada says it has dropped dramatically since 2005. Does that mean it's because of gun control? Um...not really. Our entire homicide rate dropped!
"
There were 172 homicides committed with a firearm in 2004, 11 more than in 2003 and 20 more than in 2002. However, the 2004 total was still slightly below the average of 176 homicides involving firearms over the past decade.
During the past 10 years, the proportion of homicides involving a firearm has remained fairly stable, ranging from 26% to 34%. In 2004, the proportion was 28%. In contrast, in the United States, two-thirds of all homicide victims were killed with a firearm in 2003, more than double the proportion seen in Canada.
Over the past decade, the highest rates of firearm homicides have been reported in British Columbia and Quebec. However, in 2004, Manitoba recorded 13 homicides committed with a firearm, giving it the highest provincial rate for that year.
Beginning in 2001, handguns have consistently accounted for about two-thirds of all firearm-related homicides in Canada. Last year was no exception, as 65% of firearm homicides were committed with a handgun.
Over the years, the primary method used to commit homicide has varied between stabbings and shootings. With 63 more than in 2003, the most common method used last year was stabbings, accounting for one-third of all homicides. Beatings accounted for 22% and strangulation/suffocation for a further 10%."
Wow...Guns only account for 28%-34% of our homicides? We need knife control!
Isn't it reassuring that Canadians would rather beat you to death or stab you?
It gets even better though!
"
Mental illness a factor in many homicides
A new detailed profile of the relationship, motivation and location of all 2004 homicides revealed that 70 victims were killed by someone that police believed was suffering from mental illness. The majority of these homicides were committed against family members.
There were 33 victims killed during a robbery, two-thirds of which occurred in the victim's residence. Half of those victims killed in their own home were over the age of 60.
In addition, over half of victims and almost three-quarters of accused persons had consumed alcohol and/or drugs at the time of the homicide. There were also 20 victims killed as a result of an argument originating in a bar"Gosh...75% of the killers were consuming alcohol and/or drugs at the time they killed someone!
We need to ban drugs! Oh wait...They did. It sure made them harder to find, didn't it!
So what do you figure the odds are then, that these killers were already criminals, and thus barred from owning guns in the first place?
Well...
OF 5,194 TOTAL HOMICIDES BETWEEN 1997 & 2005
- 118 (2.27%) were committed with a registered gun;
- 63 (1.21%) were committed with a firearm registered to the accused murderer;
- 111 (2.14%) were committed by a person that held a valid firearms licence.
OF 1,572 FIREARMS HOMICIDES BETWEEN 1997 & 2005
- 118 (7.51%) were committed with a registered firearm;
- 63 (4.01%) were committed with a firearms registered to the accused murderer;
- 111 (7.06%) were committed by a person that held a valid firearms licence.
OF THE TWO-MILLION LICENCED GUN OWNERS IN CANADA
- 111 (0.00555%) Used their firearm to murder someone
Unfortunately, women are often the victim of a violent crime, and the anti gun side of the fence loves trying to play that up. Also unfortunately, Stats Can has this to say.
| (1) | On snapshot day, one-fifth of all shelters referred 221 women and 112 children elsewhere. About two-thirds of these shelters reported referring women and children elsewhere because the shelter was full (See report #1 below), |
| (2) | Eight in 10 abused women in shelters were there to escape a current or former spouse/common law partner (See report #2 below). |
Aren't we glad we spent that 1.4 BILLION dollars on the gun registry now?
People ask me very often "Why do politicians think banning guns will make us safer, then?"
The answer is, they don't! They know it won't do anything! BUT...It does bring in LOTS of votes from the uninformed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)